Re: lynx-dev Re: lynx

[Larry W. Virden]

From: David Combs <address@hidden>

> Yet another reason to get rid of 99.9% of the compile-time choices
> one must make before building a lynx.
> Why?  So a NON-guru, maybe a BLIND non-guru (who is virtually *forced* to
> use lynx over ready-to-go IE and Netscape), can install the thing.

And then someone like that would NOT be able to build lynx - if they need
the various features!  The compile time options make it possible for someone
to type two commands to build lynx.  Without compile time options, one has
to edit header files and makefiles to get the features.  Not a pretty
sight.

> eg, on solaris, lynx could be provided via a Sun "package",
> and on windows, etc, via dlls or whatever.

That's different - that has to do with providing binaries - people
who want to do that already are.  Check out the sunfreeware.com site to
see if lynx isn't already available for Solaris, etc.  If someone here
is making a binary version of lynx available, let the list know and it's
likely to be added to the list of binary versions already available (on
windows , mac, etc.)


> Re size of program, *also* provide the full-of-compile-time-choices version.
> So people limited in program size can continue to use, just as before.

Having binary vs source and ssl vs nonssl already confuse people - having
more versions will just make things worse.

> (AND, that location IS compiled-in, unchangeable -- but it is NOT 
> required that any file actually BE there.)

What a nightmare - we would have thousands of versions to reflect the thousands
of ways to run a system.

thanks, but no thanks.


-- 
Larry W. Virden                 <URL: mailto:address@hidden>
<URL: http://www.purl.org/NET/lvirden/> <*> O- "No one is what he seems."
Unless explicitly stated to the contrary, nothing in this posting should 
be construed as representing my employer's opinions.